How Politics Tested Ravelry and the Crafting Community(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
How Politics Tested Ravelry and the Crafting Community
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/03/29/how-politics-tested-ravelry-and-the-crafting-community
10 comments
I subscribe to the Unix Philosophy when it comes to groups/institutions, "do one thing and do it well" and "It just does exactly what it says on the tin and no more". My ideal knitting community is all about honing the craft and experience of knitting. Politics does not belong in a knitting forum. Besides being irrelevant to needlework, it's the most polarizing and contentious subject for a group to adopt. Why risk a schism, or make people feel marginalized based on an irrelevant worldview?
Sadly, contemporary activists want politics to permeate through every aspect of society because they believe that's the best way to advance their agenda. Maybe they're right, because it forces people to tribalize and it makes the 'enemy' in the culture war easy to rally against.
Sadly, contemporary activists want politics to permeate through every aspect of society because they believe that's the best way to advance their agenda. Maybe they're right, because it forces people to tribalize and it makes the 'enemy' in the culture war easy to rally against.
Some ideas are like viruses, they will spread until the population is inoculated against them. Politics everywhere is one of those current pandemics.
That's fine as a Platonic ideal, but I don't understand how you get there in practice. In the context of the OP, is your stance that the pink hats should have been banned from the site because they have a political message?
Yes, I realize that my conception is a platonic ideal and the real-world application of my ideal is bound to be messy and there will be disagreement. In this situation it would come down to a judgement call.
I would allow the patterns because they are knitting related. I don't want to restrict any user's freedom to upload a pattern - even if it's political. And I don't want to restrict anyone else from downloading those patterns. I suppose my desire to let people share needlework patterns outweighs my desire to exclude politics. I'm more concerned about user behavior around political patterns rather than the political message of the patterns themselves. To this point, I would be weary about any user who starts to agitate and evangelize.
The key is how these users are behaving outside of those particular pattern pages. Are they intentionally trying to inject politics into other knitting discussions? Are they trying to recruit like minded people, or shaming other users who disagree? If so, that's when I would warn the user to stop, and then ban the user if they aren't making a sincere effort to be less contentious.
I would allow the patterns because they are knitting related. I don't want to restrict any user's freedom to upload a pattern - even if it's political. And I don't want to restrict anyone else from downloading those patterns. I suppose my desire to let people share needlework patterns outweighs my desire to exclude politics. I'm more concerned about user behavior around political patterns rather than the political message of the patterns themselves. To this point, I would be weary about any user who starts to agitate and evangelize.
The key is how these users are behaving outside of those particular pattern pages. Are they intentionally trying to inject politics into other knitting discussions? Are they trying to recruit like minded people, or shaming other users who disagree? If so, that's when I would warn the user to stop, and then ban the user if they aren't making a sincere effort to be less contentious.
The irony is that "no politics here" is, in itself, a political stance.
There's a spectrum here. I'm sure there are words baked into a knitting pattern you would find acceptable, and words you wouldn't. The place where you draw that line is a political decision.
And, lets be honest, we both know what online communities are like. If you draw no line at all you'll attract 100 awful people for every principled free speech activist. And if you draw a line, any kind of a line, a proportion of your userbase will spend their time tiptoeing up to it and rules lawyering it for fun. You can't avoid politics being an ongoing issue in any community.
There's a spectrum here. I'm sure there are words baked into a knitting pattern you would find acceptable, and words you wouldn't. The place where you draw that line is a political decision.
And, lets be honest, we both know what online communities are like. If you draw no line at all you'll attract 100 awful people for every principled free speech activist. And if you draw a line, any kind of a line, a proportion of your userbase will spend their time tiptoeing up to it and rules lawyering it for fun. You can't avoid politics being an ongoing issue in any community.
Among my friends who were big into Ravelry circa 2010, the experience seemed to be: Come for the patterns, stay for the community.
Knitters often include political messages in their patterns. From rainbows to certain shades of purple to flags to actual text.
So if the site is to allow arbitrary patterns—and that is its whole genesis—it will have to deal with political messages.
So if the site is to allow arbitrary patterns—and that is its whole genesis—it will have to deal with political messages.
The article mentioned a redesign issue with t he site.
I got curious, never been a user of the site, so I went to the login screen, saw the "play" button in the corner, and pressed it.
The animation is nothing special, just using scaling I think to make baloons look like they are moving...
But whoa, how I felt sick looking at it. And I have no clue why, tested a couple more times, press play, get sick, stop animation, I feel fine... The contrast looks fine-ish to me, the drawings are fine, there is nothing flashing, yet as soon I see the baloons becoming big and small repeateadly, I get sick.
I am a designer, so now I am very, VERY curious about how that happened, I searched all over the place but no answers sadly.
I got curious, never been a user of the site, so I went to the login screen, saw the "play" button in the corner, and pressed it.
The animation is nothing special, just using scaling I think to make baloons look like they are moving...
But whoa, how I felt sick looking at it. And I have no clue why, tested a couple more times, press play, get sick, stop animation, I feel fine... The contrast looks fine-ish to me, the drawings are fine, there is nothing flashing, yet as soon I see the baloons becoming big and small repeateadly, I get sick.
I am a designer, so now I am very, VERY curious about how that happened, I searched all over the place but no answers sadly.
[Moving this to a top-level comment because ~everyone is commenting, “Just don’t be political.”]
Knitters often include political messages in their patterns. From rainbows to certain shades of purple to flags to actual text. So if the site is to allow arbitrary patterns—and that is its whole genesis—it will have to deal with political messages.
This isn’t even the old trope, “Everything is political.” This is people making political statements and propaganda via knitting.
Don’t be political is not a great option. The article even talks about the history of hidden messages in knitting. Getting rid of all or even most of it is not an option.
Knitters often include political messages in their patterns. From rainbows to certain shades of purple to flags to actual text. So if the site is to allow arbitrary patterns—and that is its whole genesis—it will have to deal with political messages.
This isn’t even the old trope, “Everything is political.” This is people making political statements and propaganda via knitting.
Don’t be political is not a great option. The article even talks about the history of hidden messages in knitting. Getting rid of all or even most of it is not an option.
[deleted]
Kathrine Jebsen Moore wrote three excellent, eye-opening articles about the knitting wars:
https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/
https://quillette.com/2019/06/07/instagrams-diversity-wars-r...
https://quillette.com/2019/07/28/knittings-infinity-war-part...
https://quillette.com/2019/02/17/a-witch-hunt-on-instagram/
https://quillette.com/2019/06/07/instagrams-diversity-wars-r...
https://quillette.com/2019/07/28/knittings-infinity-war-part...
Great header image!
I think this is the problem that 'original sin' fixed. It seems that everyone believes they themselves are good. And thus, they know what's good. But, I doubt that any of us are good. And I don't think good objectively exists, in any case.
People don't realize that if you want to be the most inclusive, sometimes your focus needs to be brutally narrow. Stick to yarn and patterns and be scrupulous about telling political discussions to go elsewhere.
This.
Political activism is important. Stand up for what you believe in. But political activism does not mix with an inclusive, warm, welcoming hobby community. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs that you can't let them rest even in your knitting club, then for the sake of the knitting club you're going to either have to turn it into a political knitting club or watch it fall apart. Maybe that's a sacrifice in pursuit of a greater cause.
Political activism is important. Stand up for what you believe in. But political activism does not mix with an inclusive, warm, welcoming hobby community. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs that you can't let them rest even in your knitting club, then for the sake of the knitting club you're going to either have to turn it into a political knitting club or watch it fall apart. Maybe that's a sacrifice in pursuit of a greater cause.
What’s frustrating as well is that if they would have stuck to knitting, they probably would have done more to advance their various moral causes than explicitly calling things out. The community of knitting builds trust and friendship which is much more effective at changing people’s minds than shouting at them.
> Political activism is important. Stand up for what you believe in. But political activism does not mix with an inclusive, warm, welcoming hobby community. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs that you can't let them rest even in your knitting club, then for the sake of the knitting club you're going to either have to turn it into a political knitting club or watch it fall apart.
I disagree. Just about anything else is more important and productive than political activism. Almost all political activism (in America at least) is either pointless group therapy (e.g. Women's March), astroturfing (e.g. the "election fortifiers") or actually destructive and thus evil (choose your own "mostly peaceful protestors").
Activists have a tendency to indulge a totalizing vision of their activism. Many of the most hard-core activists would see a request to tone down their activism as akin to being asked to remove their limbs. Activism has become the core identity of some of these people.
And if activists' goals are actually achieved, activists usually have trouble letting go of their crusades, and so invent new ones or just become pure grifters. I can see no other explanation for why the most progressive institutions in America, universities for instance, are among those most frequently labeled as bigoted, racist, white supremacist or otherwise "problematic."
Yes, highly contrarian take, but if we ended all political activism tomorrow, we'd be better off.
I disagree. Just about anything else is more important and productive than political activism. Almost all political activism (in America at least) is either pointless group therapy (e.g. Women's March), astroturfing (e.g. the "election fortifiers") or actually destructive and thus evil (choose your own "mostly peaceful protestors").
Activists have a tendency to indulge a totalizing vision of their activism. Many of the most hard-core activists would see a request to tone down their activism as akin to being asked to remove their limbs. Activism has become the core identity of some of these people.
And if activists' goals are actually achieved, activists usually have trouble letting go of their crusades, and so invent new ones or just become pure grifters. I can see no other explanation for why the most progressive institutions in America, universities for instance, are among those most frequently labeled as bigoted, racist, white supremacist or otherwise "problematic."
Yes, highly contrarian take, but if we ended all political activism tomorrow, we'd be better off.
I share your cynicism about what political activism usually is, but I find it hard to share your conclusion that we'd be better of without it.
I can't say I agree fully with you, but there's definitely something about today's activists that seem odd. MLK protested in suits and ties to convince the american public blacks were respectable citizens who deserved equal protection under the law. When BLM rioted, activists went on TV to tell the lay public that "riots are the language of the unheard" and that white America basically deserved it. Whether that's true or not... It seems to me that the core aspect of political activism in a democracy is *convincing other people*. I see very little focus on this aspect and far more focus on accusing others of wrong think.
Funny you contrast MLK with... MLK. He said that quote, although he said it meaning that riots, however bad, are indeed a sign that a group feels unheard, and it's worth paying attention.
I agree with your conclusion that politics is about convincing others. That takes more patience than many people seem to have, who are eager to tell the "non-woke" how wrong and bad they are if they don't immediately accept the new gospel.
I agree with your conclusion that politics is about convincing others. That takes more patience than many people seem to have, who are eager to tell the "non-woke" how wrong and bad they are if they don't immediately accept the new gospel.
I appreciate the comment. I made an admittedly bold claim, though I do tend to believe it. Activism with skin in the game (e.g. the Tiananmen Square student protests, Vaclav Havel's dissident writings and jailing, Nelson Mandela's imprisonment, the Umbrella Movement, Mohamed Bouazizi'a self-immolation) can be extremely effective and can change the world, often for the better.
America's political activists today seem to have zero skin in the game. It mostly seems like a status and power game more than an attempt to fix something. After all, if the problem was fixed, what would these activists organizations do day-to-day? Why would anyone donate to them?
America's political activists today seem to have zero skin in the game. It mostly seems like a status and power game more than an attempt to fix something. After all, if the problem was fixed, what would these activists organizations do day-to-day? Why would anyone donate to them?
How can you say they have zero skin in the game after watching video after video after video of Black people being murdered. After an elected president brags about sexual assault. After Asian hate crimes are occurring all over the country. After LGBT+ people are assaulted and or murdered. Political activists in America have reached a generational level. Minorities in America have been mistreated and repressed for hundreds of years and they need and deserve it to be fixed. Not to mention that a whole generation of TV personalities and politicians have spent AT LEAST the last 20years demonizing anyone who protests for Civil rights or climate change. To say this is an extremely privileged POV is a massive understatement IMO.
The irony about your comment is that you're kind of proving my point about activists. Being an activist for "minorities" (I thought I heard that was exclusionary language now?) has become a core identity for you, and anyone who questions any of the social justice Gish gallop such as this merely has a "privileged POV."
Yawn.
Yawn.
Right..... The only thing I've been an activist about is climate change. I do my best to support the communities that you ignore as SJW's but prefer to let them have their own voice. The funny thing is you don't just kinda prove my point, you 100% without question prove mine. You don't don't care about their suffering so anyone that protests that is clearly just doing it for attention. The reality is that you are so selfish that you can't see others suffering and honestly that's disgusting.
Political activism, that is, working to influence politicians and the public mindset, is the only way society and politics change. You are saying that political change is usually unimportant, and so the homeless, the poor, and minority concerns can be cast aside.
Dropping words like "evil" for any destructive activity is itself absurdly absolutist.
I mean, I do believe that politics should be extracted from parts of society so we can go back to some kind of harmony, much like we don't eat food or exercise or meditate 24/7. Politics and political consideration, however important, are exhausting and we can't go on thinking about it all day every day.
Dropping words like "evil" for any destructive activity is itself absurdly absolutist.
I mean, I do believe that politics should be extracted from parts of society so we can go back to some kind of harmony, much like we don't eat food or exercise or meditate 24/7. Politics and political consideration, however important, are exhausting and we can't go on thinking about it all day every day.
> Almost all political activism (in America at least) is either pointless group therapy (e.g. Women's March), astroturfing (e.g. the "election fortifiers") or actually destructive and thus evil (choose your own "mostly peaceful protestors").
>I can see no other explanation for why the most progressive institutions in America, universities for instance, are among those most frequently labeled as bigoted, racist, white supremacist or otherwise "problematic."
It's weird how you're pretending to make a statement about political activism in general, while only casting aspersions on progressive and leftist activism, using popular right-wing pejoratives ("mostly peaceful protestors") and even "election fortifiers" which is I believe a QAnon meme.
>Yes, highly contrarian take, but if we ended all political activism tomorrow, we'd be better off.
It isn't at all. Pretending to be apolitical while shitting on the left is so common it's practically banal around here.
>I can see no other explanation for why the most progressive institutions in America, universities for instance, are among those most frequently labeled as bigoted, racist, white supremacist or otherwise "problematic."
It's weird how you're pretending to make a statement about political activism in general, while only casting aspersions on progressive and leftist activism, using popular right-wing pejoratives ("mostly peaceful protestors") and even "election fortifiers" which is I believe a QAnon meme.
>Yes, highly contrarian take, but if we ended all political activism tomorrow, we'd be better off.
It isn't at all. Pretending to be apolitical while shitting on the left is so common it's practically banal around here.
> It's weird how you're pretending to make a statement about political activism in general, while only casting aspersions on progressive and leftist activism,[...]
> using popular right-wing pejoratives ("mostly peaceful protestors")[...]
The 06 January Capitol protestors were mostly peaceful, too. I chose an open-ended phrase open ended for a reason, notwithstanding the fact that many committed leftists I speak to seem unaware that riot police and tear gas were used against Capitol protestors just like the urban rioters last summer.[1]
Besides, the right is entirely disorganized and has essentially no activism to speak of. When the Buffalo guy was arrested, there was no bail fund to go get him out. He's rotting in a jail cell to this day.
It's a plain fact, regardless of position on the political spectrum, that the Right today is basically a joke.
> [...]and even "election fortifiers" which is I believe a QAnon meme.
Your belief is incorrect. I kindly ask you to retract your defamatory statement.
"Fortifying" was used in a Time Magazine article entitled "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"[2]:
> That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
> It isn't at all. Pretending to be apolitical while shitting on the left is so common it's practically banal around here.
I'm not sure where I pretended to be apolitical. I'm merely non-ideological, and thus reject political activism (of the contemporary American type).
And the idea that HN is some right-wing troll farm is laughably funny. If only you could see the downvotes.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-supporters-storm-...
[2] https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
> using popular right-wing pejoratives ("mostly peaceful protestors")[...]
The 06 January Capitol protestors were mostly peaceful, too. I chose an open-ended phrase open ended for a reason, notwithstanding the fact that many committed leftists I speak to seem unaware that riot police and tear gas were used against Capitol protestors just like the urban rioters last summer.[1]
Besides, the right is entirely disorganized and has essentially no activism to speak of. When the Buffalo guy was arrested, there was no bail fund to go get him out. He's rotting in a jail cell to this day.
It's a plain fact, regardless of position on the political spectrum, that the Right today is basically a joke.
> [...]and even "election fortifiers" which is I believe a QAnon meme.
Your belief is incorrect. I kindly ask you to retract your defamatory statement.
"Fortifying" was used in a Time Magazine article entitled "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"[2]:
> That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.
> It isn't at all. Pretending to be apolitical while shitting on the left is so common it's practically banal around here.
I'm not sure where I pretended to be apolitical. I'm merely non-ideological, and thus reject political activism (of the contemporary American type).
And the idea that HN is some right-wing troll farm is laughably funny. If only you could see the downvotes.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trump-supporters-storm-...
[2] https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
It’s hard to do when a very vocal and intimidating group of activists insist everything is political. “Silence is violence”, after all.
One of the commands the various Critical Therories have is to find ‘X’ in everything and expose it. Don’t ask if ‘X’ happened but rather find how ‘X’ happened. ‘X’ can mean racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. And often these terms, like racism, have been redefined to mean something different than what most people think.
So, you can’t just have a nice hobby community according to these therories. You absolutely must unmask the “problematics” in them or else you are perpetuating systemic racism or the patriarchy, or whatever. Any denial that ‘X’ was somehow present is further proof it did happen. Denial is further evidence of guilt. If you don’t join in on the pile-on then you will be cast out and accused of ‘X’ as well and at best have to find new friends and at worst having your livelihood destroyed. So there’s a lot of incentive to “do better”.
One of the commands the various Critical Therories have is to find ‘X’ in everything and expose it. Don’t ask if ‘X’ happened but rather find how ‘X’ happened. ‘X’ can mean racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc. And often these terms, like racism, have been redefined to mean something different than what most people think.
So, you can’t just have a nice hobby community according to these therories. You absolutely must unmask the “problematics” in them or else you are perpetuating systemic racism or the patriarchy, or whatever. Any denial that ‘X’ was somehow present is further proof it did happen. Denial is further evidence of guilt. If you don’t join in on the pile-on then you will be cast out and accused of ‘X’ as well and at best have to find new friends and at worst having your livelihood destroyed. So there’s a lot of incentive to “do better”.
You're being downvoted, but this is true.
The disagreement is over whether it's a good thing (break a few eggs, make a better-society-overall omelette) or a bad thing (anyone can get canceled at any time, everyone divided).
The disagreement is over whether it's a good thing (break a few eggs, make a better-society-overall omelette) or a bad thing (anyone can get canceled at any time, everyone divided).
The problematics usually unmask themselves. Ravelry is, I think, struggling with the question of how to deal with their more irascible members.
To avoid the subject is to, implicitly, side with the status quo. "Everything is political", even the choice to avoid politics.
And other people don't want their club to be political as such, but they feel personally threatened by people with certain political views. They feel uncomfortable with even the suggestion that someone in their club might hold such views.
This is true regardless of one's personal political affiliation.
I know at least a few people who think (not without justification) that American political conservatives generally want them and everyone like them dead and/or in some state of second-class citizenship.
On the flipside, I know a handful of conservatives who believe fervently that left-leaning political policy is going to destroy their and their families' livelihoods, leaving their children without the future that they've worked hard to build.
I don't see how anyone could be comfortable in a knitting club alongside someone who they see as a literal existential threat.
This is true regardless of one's personal political affiliation.
I know at least a few people who think (not without justification) that American political conservatives generally want them and everyone like them dead and/or in some state of second-class citizenship.
On the flipside, I know a handful of conservatives who believe fervently that left-leaning political policy is going to destroy their and their families' livelihoods, leaving their children without the future that they've worked hard to build.
I don't see how anyone could be comfortable in a knitting club alongside someone who they see as a literal existential threat.
It's not specifically a knitting club problem, is it?
The corollary is that it's not realistic to expect hobby knitters to solve a set of radioactively toxic political problems. Not even locally.
The corollary is that it's not realistic to expect hobby knitters to solve a set of radioactively toxic political problems. Not even locally.
Indeed and well-said.
This is exactly why they _should_ be in a knitting club together. To deflate these tribalistic views which are mostly fuelled by isolation from each other.
Only in your belief system. Not mine and others.
Consider that this might be a privileged perspective.
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to carry out their lives regardless of what happens in politics.
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to carry out their lives regardless of what happens in politics.
In my experience, the people saying "the ability to not pay attention to politics is privilege" are typically privileged rich white women, not oppressed minorities - those people don't like talking about politics in knitting club. Just a sample size of one.
And in my experience, it's trans people, DACA recipients, people with dark skin, and people who identify as queer.
Political involvement is dominated by the privileged
Likewise, not everyone has the privilege of dragging politics into every facet of their lives. Many people like me were bullied by groups when they were younger. And these supposed "anti-hate" mobs look an awful lot like those bullies.
To be honest, you sound like a flat earther. Reality isn't a belief system.
Would your hypothetical knitting club allow all patterns? That's a political position. If not, would it allow a pattern with the word "VEGAN" baked into it? Yes or no, that's a political position too.
There's no flow through that paragraph that doesn't end in making a political choice. You can't avoid politics, you can only pretend to.
Would your hypothetical knitting club allow all patterns? That's a political position. If not, would it allow a pattern with the word "VEGAN" baked into it? Yes or no, that's a political position too.
There's no flow through that paragraph that doesn't end in making a political choice. You can't avoid politics, you can only pretend to.
I very much agree with this in principle, but I think there are limits to it too. If a user who uses they/them joins your community and talks about yarn and patterns, referring to the user will always be political unless you ignore them or don't use pronouns around them, which is also political. And then whether or not the user is allowed to participate might be political- some users might be highly uncomfortable with a they/them pronoun user even participating and want a community "without those politics".
Why does that user have to reveal any pronouns on the web? The default state of web based communication is ungendered. I have no idea what your pronouns are. If I was referring to you in a comment thread I would have to use "they/them" (or maybe "KittenInABox"). That's not a political stance, that's just English.
If the policy then has to be that everyone has to be they/them or no one can have pronouns/correct anyone else about pronouns, then that itself is a political stance. Some things are just unavoidable.
That feels like an artificial problem though. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
It's relatively easy to pass as any gender, age, race or whatever you want to. Yes, it will be more difficult if you call your account Transwomxn or request that people use xe/xir to refer to you, but if you're SarahKnitting, everybody will just assume you're Sarah and into knitting and will use she. At that point, it might be the right call by the community to not accomodate those that want to focus their membership on their political identity so they can provide a friendly community about knitting for the SarahKnittings of the internet.
It's relatively easy to pass as any gender, age, race or whatever you want to. Yes, it will be more difficult if you call your account Transwomxn or request that people use xe/xir to refer to you, but if you're SarahKnitting, everybody will just assume you're Sarah and into knitting and will use she. At that point, it might be the right call by the community to not accomodate those that want to focus their membership on their political identity so they can provide a friendly community about knitting for the SarahKnittings of the internet.
Right, what you're saying is that xe/xir is a political identity and therefore certain trans people aren't welcome. But that decision is of itself political.
Here is the real clue in the article:
> Cassidy has noticed a growing dynamic. “The knitting community has a big issue with people being very concerned that, if they don’t support a callout, they’ll be called out themselves,” she told me. “Not joining it seems scary to people.”
I really have to say, I think this is a bad article. Not because it is badly written, or because it is factually wrong. But because an unfamiliar reader would get the wrong impression about what is really going on.
Ravelry and the knitting community do have a big problem. But it is not primarily with political polarization per se. It's the community-oriented mindset that does not work at scale.
The knitting community is experiencing what we all will experience wherever this mindset becomes dominant: homogenization and the enforcement of conformity. We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.
> Cassidy has noticed a growing dynamic. “The knitting community has a big issue with people being very concerned that, if they don’t support a callout, they’ll be called out themselves,” she told me. “Not joining it seems scary to people.”
I really have to say, I think this is a bad article. Not because it is badly written, or because it is factually wrong. But because an unfamiliar reader would get the wrong impression about what is really going on.
Ravelry and the knitting community do have a big problem. But it is not primarily with political polarization per se. It's the community-oriented mindset that does not work at scale.
The knitting community is experiencing what we all will experience wherever this mindset becomes dominant: homogenization and the enforcement of conformity. We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.
Every problem can be modeled as an instance of a class of problems. This can be useful, but it does also detract from this specific instance of a totalitarian ideological attack on a specific community.
In game theory the 'punish those that do not actively join in punishing outsiders' is a requirement for group stability, and it has been a staple tactic in every totalitarian regime.
In game theory the 'punish those that do not actively join in punishing outsiders' is a requirement for group stability, and it has been a staple tactic in every totalitarian regime.
> We need distance and live-and-let-live in society. It's not a family.
Get rid of social media. Problem solved. It's putting too many people in proximity who otherwise should and would not be. The end result is always an angry mob.
Get rid of social media. Problem solved. It's putting too many people in proximity who otherwise should and would not be. The end result is always an angry mob.
But didn't the problem really escalate when media scaled electronically with radio and television. Those mediums didn't include interaction like social media does, but it seems like the diversity of ideas (at least visibly) is inversely proportional to the scale of broadcasting.
Broadcasting is a related, but separate problem.
What's in the news will be the topic of conversation in your community, but it does not lead thought in your community. It does not identify with anyone there.
Social media has replaced the community itself. It dictates who you speak to and how.
It is among the most insidious weapons that we've invented yet and it's aimed almost exclusively at civilians.
What's in the news will be the topic of conversation in your community, but it does not lead thought in your community. It does not identify with anyone there.
Social media has replaced the community itself. It dictates who you speak to and how.
It is among the most insidious weapons that we've invented yet and it's aimed almost exclusively at civilians.
I'm reading Gad Saad's The Parasitic Mind at the moment. His metaphor of how parasitic ideas can take hold within a group and then take control of the host seems to be on display here.
I recently picked up a copy of Red Color News Soldier from the library, a photojournalist's description of events where call-out mentality is taken to the extreme (many of those who ran the call-outs later suffered brutal call-outs themselves, including the author).
One of my overarching questions as I read was really, "How is it that people come to support these events?" The initial conditions seem to require the right mix of organization, discord, and chaos.
The notion that the question is one of scaling is interesting. It isn't the internet that drives the emergence of large-scale call-outs -- humans have been doing this throughout history. The scaling argument offers a possible framework, i.e., is there a critical scale at which a call-out becomes systemically harmful?
One of my overarching questions as I read was really, "How is it that people come to support these events?" The initial conditions seem to require the right mix of organization, discord, and chaos.
The notion that the question is one of scaling is interesting. It isn't the internet that drives the emergence of large-scale call-outs -- humans have been doing this throughout history. The scaling argument offers a possible framework, i.e., is there a critical scale at which a call-out becomes systemically harmful?
It would also seem to be one of those situations where a bunch of very active social media folks are used to define a community.
Even in technology focused circles I think you'd get the wrong impression about an entire industry if you just read social media.
I don't know how people get a good litmus test for what a community is up to but conflict breeds lots of activity, you're bound to see a lot of it if enough people participate... but it's hard to really understand what a 'community' is up to beyond that.
Even in technology focused circles I think you'd get the wrong impression about an entire industry if you just read social media.
I don't know how people get a good litmus test for what a community is up to but conflict breeds lots of activity, you're bound to see a lot of it if enough people participate... but it's hard to really understand what a 'community' is up to beyond that.
Diclaimer: I agree that loudly announcing one's political stance and trying to pursue it in a craft community is often more alienating than inclusive.
However, I want to ask how do we handle things that will always be viewed as political, such as trans or gay people? There is no non-political way to refer to a trans person- either you use a trans persons pronouns or you don't. And if you do either, you're making a political announcement in a group.
However, I want to ask how do we handle things that will always be viewed as political, such as trans or gay people? There is no non-political way to refer to a trans person- either you use a trans persons pronouns or you don't. And if you do either, you're making a political announcement in a group.
There's a reason you don't talk about politics and religion in polite company. You should not be judged for your worldview if it differs from somebody else. The personal should not be political.
I agree the personal shouldn't be political, but I also am willing to straight up say some people's personal lives are political, eg. trans people asking to be viewed as their gender identity is a political stance and that can mess up family/polite company altogether. There's just no escaping it.
What % of your words spoken/written are pronouns referring to a transgender person? 'No escaping it' seems like a bit much, and it needn't justify culture wars taking over an entire space.
I'd say that if someone pointedly uses non-preferred pronouns, they're being a jerk and they're the one bringing politics into the space. But most of what we're seeing here is not that scenario.
I'd say that if someone pointedly uses non-preferred pronouns, they're being a jerk and they're the one bringing politics into the space. But most of what we're seeing here is not that scenario.
> What % of your words spoken/written are pronouns referring to a transgender person?
If they happen to be trans, at least half of them?
If they happen to be trans, at least half of them?
It's not a family, but it is a republic, and there are people across the country from me who are not letting others live (using their votes).
"Live and let live" doesn't work when we have people trying to deprive us of rights, either with their vote or by doing things like traveling across the country to attack the federal capitol.
"Live and let live" doesn't work when we have people trying to deprive us of rights, either with their vote or by doing things like traveling across the country to attack the federal capitol.
Alternatively, people in Oklahoma and people in New York don't want the same things, don't share the same values and should be free to choose to self-govern in different ways.
"Right to Travel", as in the right to move and relocate between states, is a well-established legal doctrine. Go live where it suits you. Don't force other people to live how it suits you.
"Right to Travel", as in the right to move and relocate between states, is a well-established legal doctrine. Go live where it suits you. Don't force other people to live how it suits you.
People in Oklahoma are not a homogenous group. Lots of people are born in Oklahoma and would prefer to live elsewhere, but they can't afford to move (or aren't old enough yet).
> Don't force other people to live how it suits you.
That's exactly what I'm advocating for. "Live and let live" is something that has to actively be enforced.
For example: I live in Georgia and voted by mail. There are people in other states who are trying to pass federal laws that make it harder for me to vote by mail.
Another example: there are people trying to take away women's rights to reproductive care (and I'm talking about contraceptives too, not just abortion).
"Live and let live" implies a passive state, but it's actually a very active state. The constant and vigorous legal activity of the ACLU is proof of that.
> Don't force other people to live how it suits you.
That's exactly what I'm advocating for. "Live and let live" is something that has to actively be enforced.
For example: I live in Georgia and voted by mail. There are people in other states who are trying to pass federal laws that make it harder for me to vote by mail.
Another example: there are people trying to take away women's rights to reproductive care (and I'm talking about contraceptives too, not just abortion).
"Live and let live" implies a passive state, but it's actually a very active state. The constant and vigorous legal activity of the ACLU is proof of that.
People in Oklahoma are not culturally homogenous, but they are on average more similar to each other than they are to people in New York.
Yes, obviously there are a minority of people in Oklahoma that are stifled by living there. That doesn't mean the solution to that problem is changing their laws. Orders of magnitude more money are spent to change those laws than is spent to simply help people relocate who could otherwise not afford it.
Instead of offering charity to solve a problem you're offering force (and a tyranny of the minority).
As far as mail in voting in your state goes, states have pretty much always set their own election rules. What's actually happening right now is the opposite of what you claim. The Federal government right now is trying to institute universal mail in voting and removing States' ability to set their own election laws.
To do the other things that you're talking about takes 38 out of 50 states to agree. It's a pretty high bar -- such that it's crossed fairly infrequently. And if it does so that might just be what's best for the country as a whole.
I live in New York and am fairly liberal, but this idea that we're going to make the whole country govern the same way is fucking batshit.
Yes, obviously there are a minority of people in Oklahoma that are stifled by living there. That doesn't mean the solution to that problem is changing their laws. Orders of magnitude more money are spent to change those laws than is spent to simply help people relocate who could otherwise not afford it.
Instead of offering charity to solve a problem you're offering force (and a tyranny of the minority).
As far as mail in voting in your state goes, states have pretty much always set their own election rules. What's actually happening right now is the opposite of what you claim. The Federal government right now is trying to institute universal mail in voting and removing States' ability to set their own election laws.
To do the other things that you're talking about takes 38 out of 50 states to agree. It's a pretty high bar -- such that it's crossed fairly infrequently. And if it does so that might just be what's best for the country as a whole.
I live in New York and am fairly liberal, but this idea that we're going to make the whole country govern the same way is fucking batshit.
I have done this, I moved to Southern Maine from Ohio. A large reason was the political environment. The problem is that most people aren't satisfied with live and let live. You can see this in the flooding of courts with conservative judges, the rise of the Trump style party, and the constant fight over covid. When you have two diametrically opposed groups with shared power you have to have you need a common based and view point or the whole thing falls apart. I believe that we have reached the point of no return and the USA is broken. I don't believe it can be fixed at this point.
I often share the same failed state sentiment, but at the same time we're more resilient than that and I think we can and have walked back from the edge of the cliff.
I have faith that at some point we'll shake off grifters and demagogues from politics and media and collectively come together and say "no more". Sames goes for social media. There is a growing concensus around the toxicity of these things and people walking away from it. Have hope.
I have faith that at some point we'll shake off grifters and demagogues from politics and media and collectively come together and say "no more". Sames goes for social media. There is a growing concensus around the toxicity of these things and people walking away from it. Have hope.
If it was still a republic people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all. Instead we have ended up at democracy as Aristotle long ago predicted: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
I think you're conflating "republic" with "federal system". The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.
> If it was still a [federal system] people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all.
The US had a system like that early on and it failed.
> If it was still a [federal system] people across the country would have little effect on you since a weak federal government would be ineffective in enforcing their mandates if it was able to at all.
The US had a system like that early on and it failed.
When you have a two party system and no one outside of their narrow policy definitions can be elected (not as it's illegal but as in not one can overcome the completely biased system) you vote for a representative is a de-facto vote for policies. If you vote R it's an anti-aboration, gun rights, anti-immigrant vote. If you vote D it's a gun control, immigration, climate change vote. Sure you can say we vote for reps but in reality you have the choice of R or D and nothing you say or do really changes the policies that you are voting for.
>The US is still very much a republic, in the sense that we vote almost exclusively for representatives, not for policies.
If you split hairs like that democracy never really existed at a national level anywhere. Representative democracy is still democracy as far as I am concerned.
If you split hairs like that democracy never really existed at a national level anywhere. Representative democracy is still democracy as far as I am concerned.
None of this is about government power in the knitting space, though.
When the debate goes from "people want to take away your rights!" to "people in Florida want to pass a law and if you don't like it you have 49 other states to choose from" it tends to cool down the discourse a bit.
Germane: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22240041
I like the model proposed. But... unherd. Read critically.
I like the model proposed. But... unherd. Read critically.
> But... unherd. Read critically.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying this because UnHerd confirms your priors? Or is there some reason to demur on their credibility?
I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying this because UnHerd confirms your priors? Or is there some reason to demur on their credibility?
It's one of those "follow the money" deals.
The theory's really attractive, I like the theory, but its starting point is to assume everyone acts in bad faith.
The theory's really attractive, I like the theory, but its starting point is to assume everyone acts in bad faith.
My wife was a cheerful producer of original knitting patterns, free and commercial, for several years before this stuff started to happen. She just stopped talking about knitting online altogether, for a while. Now she's careful to only post knitting on Facebook to a limited audience.